Honestly , you haven't had any valid points that I didn't agree with but if you really want to believe that be my guest.

Don't answer the questions... then.

Whatever...

You really think the government deliberately tries to kill black people with aids and crack? That is amazing!

Think about this for a second... if you would.

If the government was purposely racist and trying to kill black people (which is absurd) would they create a healthcare epidemic that would spread to everyother race and cost billions to themselves in increased medical costs and awareness and prevention policies?

Or better yet, with crack, would they not only create massive treatment, prevention and enforement cost again for whitey and themselves by introducing crack to the ghetto? You may not acknowledge it but crime statistics against GI whitey might go up. So creating a bunch of crackheads might be a bit self defeating in the long run, no? Wouldn't it also spread to evil whitey after marion barry passed the pipe? I am sure all the evil white people who were carjacked and killed for a $5 rock would support that analogy.

It's absurd and you have to be kidding, if so, touche... if not, douche.

I have answered almost every point you have made with proof it was exaggerated or inaccurate, you have never answered one thing with an honest answer. And then you accuse me of that, is this a joke?

I understand the concept, trust me. I honestly cannot stand watching debates and interviews where people won't asnwer the questions, instead asking new questions.

I have made every attempt to provide an answer and yet I usually just get "snide" or dismissive generalizations and completely off the wall answers. Just read the conversations and you will see me answering line by line as best as possible, and then asking you specific questions on the environmental factors you have experienced in order to try and understand your position.

From what I can determine, and please correct me as I have asked at least once, you never had it rough and tried to use the great public assistance you champion to find it doesn't apply to everyone. You might not have ever been skipped over for promotion by someone half as smart, 10% as experienced and twice as absent from work based on race and a tax break because of affirmative action. You probably never had to fight your way out of a race riot at school, and by race riot I mean being attacked because you are not a minority and happened to be in the wrong hallway. Have you ever emptied trash cans? Scrubbed toilets? Worked 3 jobs and tried to finish school?

I am guessing, and again prove me wrong, that you have had it easy and don't understand how hard life can be if you don't have family or charity to help you out of a jam. I only say that because you won't tell me anything that isn't vague. (Like the from america comment)

Bring the violins and the heavy syrup, because mine is a sad tale. Half of my life was spent doing some other clucker's time, and the other half -- well you know the score.

When I was passed over or laid-off, it was sometimes due to bias or nepotism but not racial (except if people hate reddish hair). Perhaps it played a factor once where I was accused of stealing but they eventually found out who it was (a white guy of course), and I can still laugh at a friend of a friend for taking the wrong side if he takes an attitude. Now, the other half was my own fault, living the good life, well I know.

And it's a volatile, secretive kind of socialism, one that can only respond spasmodically to the crises it inevitably creates, throwing gobs of money to the last desperate survivors of financial ships it deregulated to the bottom of the ocean. We've had bubbles in stocks (1920s), commercial real estate (1980s), energy (2000s), and housing (2000s), based on finance-backed feeding frenzies. At the end of each of these you'll find socialism on a grand scale instituted to repair the damage, including, of course, the S&L bailout of the 1980s and the current bailout package. But it's too often forgotten that the New Deal itself, that devilish boogeyman of the right, only became possible because deficit spending was needed to keep afloat a financial system gutted in part by stock speculators borrowing on margin – a risk that has since been abetted, not by removing rules, but by making more of them, and making them smarter.

Like when mccain supported reeling in fannie mae in 2005 and barney fife and the boyz said their was nothing wrong with fannie mae and freddie mac?

And I already posted this but here it is again:

Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. Thislaw says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced manylending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenderswould not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (SubPrime Loans). This was in 1977. In 1980 president Carter and a Democraticcontrolled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation andMonetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal ReserveBoard of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation to set the interest rates ofsavings accounts. A Sad fact is we are all still feeling the effects of hispolicies and decisions 30 years later.

Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to theCommunity Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the number of loans

to these people and the aggregate dollar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans topeople with less income in areas where the collateral value would go downinstead of up. ( Clinton should have had his mind on the long range effectsof this instead of Monica and a good cigar.) This was in response topressure from "community organizer." Can you think of a former Communityorganizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat

In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act whichhad protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.

In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatorycontrol over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under thecontrol of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberaldemocrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one ofObama's top two economic advisors the other is Jim Johnson who

was the head of Freddie Mac and walked away with $24,000,000.

Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts so you will

believe that all our financial problems are because of Bush's failed economic

policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO

HIS CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac- Jim Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae – (Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6 years).

In addition, since 1989 their have been several politicians who have received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner up is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second largest amount of donations (over $500,000) which is phenomenal because he has only been in the Senate for 3 years.

When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearings and investigations.Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies?